Field of the Invention
The present invention relates in general to systems and methods for resolving transactions, and more specifically to systems and methods for resolving transactions using a computer network.
Description of the Related Art
Certain types of negotiations, such as financial transactions, entail complex, time consuming, and frequently expensive methods directed toward gathering information and facilitating resolution of the transaction. For example, debt resolution tends to require investigating the ability of the debtor to satisfy the debt, the terms under which the debt may be settled to the satisfaction of the creditor, and collection of the debt by typically telephoning or otherwise personally contacting the debtor and facilitating the resolution of the debt. Seeking and obtaining charitable contributions can entail similar techniques, such as gathering information and assessing a contributor's or potential contributor's desire to pay based on various factors, such as prior contributions to the present organization, contributions to past organizations, and so forth, if such information is even available at all. Several other transaction resolution scenarios exist, including but not limited to resolving insurance claims, resolving lawsuits, mediations, or arbitrations, and even disposing of goods and services.
Complexities arise when certain restrictions are put in place, such as an inability for one party to an existing or potential transaction to contact the other, either by business convention or simply a lack of information about the other party.
One transaction resolution scenario involves the field of insurance claim settlements. Again, resolution of an insurance claim requires investigation or projection into the amount the claimant is willing to accept, the amount the insurer is willing to offer, and a mechanism for getting the insurer representative and the claimant to resolve the transaction. Typically the insurer's representative and the claimant and/or her representative meet face to face or by telephone to negotiate and settle on a satisfactory sum, based on a variety of factors including but not limited to the severity of the harm, the financial position of the claimant, the cost of financing the settlement, and other relevant factors.
One of the most effective methods of transaction resolution, or transaction facilitation, has been a party desiring resolution of the transaction or facilitating the transaction simply calling the other party using a telephone. However, in some situations a telephone call can be perceived as intrusive and possibly hostile.
A telephone solicitor, debt collector or attorney may be paid on a commission, i.e. receives payment based on the amount collected. Payment on a commission basis can be contradictory to the goals of resolving or facilitating the transaction, since in a financial setting the party seeking payment may want the highest amount paid to enhance her individual commissions, while her employer may seek a highest total amount of money collected. The problem occurs when the individual obtains a high dollar resolution but the payor believes he was treated poorly and either refuses to pay any further monies ever or informs his friends of the bad experience and his friends do not engage in transaction resolution. Thus the use of overly aggressive tactics to collect certain high-commission monies can limit the total overall recovery.
Typical costs for resolving transactions include salaries, commissions and operating and infrastructure costs (e.g., electricity, office space, furniture, desktop equipment and support, telephony equipment, operation and support, administrative support personnel, and accounting, etc.). Salaries and commissions are required not only for obtaining funds, but also preliminary investigation of the contributor, borrower, debtor, or other appropriate entity.
In a debt resolution context, and in other certain legal scenarios, money can be received by entities that do not provide the goods, services, or transactions but have the right, authority, or task to complete the transaction. In the debt resolution context, debt collectors function solely for the purpose of collecting the debt, and as such have certain rights and restrictions on operation. When a debt collector seeks to collect a debt, the longer a debt remains delinquent, the more the debt increases due to interest fees and penalties. The overall probability of recovery decreases over time. Large segments of debt can fall “out of statute” and become legally unrecoverable after 7 years. Thus, in debt collection, contacting debtors and settling accounts must occur within specified time frames. Similarly, other transactions can have certain hard imposed deadlines, including but not limited to fund raising goals, statutes of limitations, and so forth.
Changes in contact information present a significant problem in resolving transactions or facilitating transactions in today's society. Current information providers provide current phone numbers on a limited number of persons. Current phone numbers must first be dialed in order to determine whether the telephone number is active and still used by the original debtor. Telephone numbers are constantly being reassigned and the cost of calling changed numbers remains high and is extremely inefficient.
A party wishing to resolve a transaction is typically forced to use either a carrot or stick approach. In debt collection, debt collectors typically have available the threat of litigation, posting of derogatory information on the debtor's credit bureau, and the offer of settlement at a reduced amount as their primary tools when dealing with the debtor. Collection practices generally are not optimized for best overall return. Rules of thumb are used for settlement amounts based on general past experience, but typically require some amount of investigation to, for example, establish whether reporting delinquent status to a credit bureau will have a measurable effect on a debtor and/or the ability for the debtor to pay a particular amount over time. The expense of the collection process does not allow for a great deal of tuning of the settlement offer to the individual debtor. In the solicitation area, the solicitor has available a set of benefits that can or will be conveyed to the party being contacted, a variety of contribution options in a charitable solicitation arrangement, and general amounts may be presented to the party contacted. Rules of thumb and instinct are again employed, but an investigation into an ability and desire to pay can have a significant effect on the amount the party contacted eventually contributes. The same is true in a mediation or arbitration setting.
In light of the above, it would be desirable to have a system and method that improves transaction resolutions over systems and methods previously employed for such purposes.